Jump to content

Talk:Carole Radziwill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Book Review

[edit]

Someone is insisting on putting a review of my book on wikipedia in violation of the rules. This isn't meant to be space for review or commentary. It is merely FACTS about my life. I keep deleting it and it gets reverted. Whoever is doing this I kindly ask you to stop. It is extremely irritating. I don't see book reviews on other authors memoirs. If I am wrong please show me an author who has had their book bascially excerpted on wikipedia. If this is a problem I would like to request my entry be deleted in its entirety. Additionally I was born in 1968. Thank you. Carole Radziwill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gigimadison (talk • contribs).

Your massive deletions of article content were unaccompanied by explaination, and the reverts clearly stated that this was the reason the material was being re-instated. The difficulty here is that the content of your memoir also happened to constitute the facts of your life, and it is normal and appropriate for those facts, re-written, to be inclued in a Wiki bio. That bio is not a review of your writing, but a summary of those portions of your life which justify Wiki including your bio and are likely to interest Wiki readers seeking information about the author, the Bouviers, or the Kennedys. That said, I did not intend to include information in the article that you would rather not be included, although such information may be included if noteworthy and written to Wiki's standards: Wiki bios on authors frequently discuss the content and impact of their published works. Moreover, I have no way of knowing whether you are who you say you are. But Wiki's practice on bios of living persons is clear: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to remove what they see as errors or unfair material:". In deference to that policy, I am reverting my deletion thereby leaving out what you excised. I sincerely apologize if I have in any way caused you any discomfort or distress: I very much enjoyed the book, admired its protagonist, and wish you well. Lethiere 02:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In the book, What Remains, Di Falco reports turning 4 in 1967 on page 35 where she writes about being on a road trip with her family on Labor Day of 1967. She writes that she has just turned four, making her year of birth 1963. This would make the year of birth 1968 impossible. Also, Di Falco speaks of being 12 and in seventh grade in 1976 - which is interesting also, because school starts after Labor Day. I don't know why someone keeps changing the year back to 1968 or 1970 when the writer herself has written in her book that she was born before 1968 and turned 4 in 1967. I see that above Di Falco says she was born in 1968, but it doesn't match up with what she has previously written.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Carole_Radziwill"

Polish American

[edit]

The article is tagged under a list of "Polish Americans". Although one could certainly label her late husband as Polish-American, is Ms. Radziwill herself of Polish-American extraction? Knowing nothing of her beyond what is in the wikipedia article, if indeed her maiden name is "Di Falco" this would seem to indicate Italian- American heritage.

Accurate reporting of year of birth

[edit]

The accurate reporting of the date of birth of a person of interest is a standard inclusion in any biographical work. The year of birth of the subject of this biography is being changed to 1968 from 1963. A person claiming to be Di Falco writes in the discussion that her year of birth was 1968.

In Di Falco's book, "What Remains", the author gives many references to her age at the time of the various events she reports. On page 35, she writes that she had just turned four on Labor Day 1967, which would make her year of birth 1963. If her year of birth was 1968, she wouldn't have been present in 1967. On page 20, she discusses her hatred of the 'tragedy whores', writing that she hated them at age 12 in 1976 after the death of a classmate (Garritano twin in dumbwaiter) and hated them at age 35, after the deaths of her friends in a plane crash on July 16, 1999. She writes later of her birthday following her husband's death three weeks after the death of her friends (p 254). Again, these dates concur with the year 1963 as her year of birth.

Di Falco writes that she was married on August 27, 1994 (p.13 What Remains). After her marriage, she writes (p. 56) that she was 31 when she and her new husband rented their apartment.

Di Falco also reports beginning her unpaid internship with ABC in November 1986 during her third year at Hunter College (p. 63 What Remains). In 1989 she reports that she was 25 and was assigned to Leslie Cockburn, again making the year of birth 1963 (p. 69 What Remains).

These ages and dates would make 1968 as the year of birth false.

In addition, in an interview on December 5, 2005 with Linda Frum of Macleans, Di Falco responds to a question about her motivation for writing the book, "What Remains", with the statement that "I thought that if I was going to write a book then I was going to have to be honest. People recognize honesty. They crave it." (link http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20051205_116946_116946&source=srch)

Acimmouse (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

[edit]

There seems to be a long-standing complaint from the subject of this bio that the date or year or birth is wrong, and she doesn't want it to be included. I see no reason to disrespect that; there is nothing about this bio that makes the precise age essential. BLP is very clear that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to things like this. I should add that I'm approaching this as an admin, by the way, in case a situation arises where admin action might be appropriate. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue appears to be that she does not want it published at all, not that it is incorrect.  – ukexpat (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine too, Uk. If there were some issue at stake e.g. the subject of the BLP had been accused of doing something under-age at a certain point in her life and it was directly relevant to her notability, then our other policies would kick in. But where nothing is at stake, there's no point in upsetting someone and possibly getting the dates wrong. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princess or not princess

[edit]

Let's discuss this. If you revert a new IP, please point him to this page in the edit summary. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure where one would go to find official evidence of Princessness, but no, she isn't. Radziwill is American, and we don't recognize titles of nobility here. The title would come from her late husband's family. The Radziwill family is Polish, and the Third Polish Republic does not recognize titles of nobility. The title was granted to the family by Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I in 1518. The Holy Roman Empire was abolished in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars. The Austrian Empire, which descended from it, ceased to exist when it was dissolved in 1918. The Republic of Austria does not recognize titles of nobility. Her late husband grew up in London. His father, Stanislas Radziwill, became a British citizen. In order for a British citizen to use a foreign title he would have to receive permission from the sovereign. He did not receive permission and was adressed in the UK as "Mr. Radziwill."
And putting all of this aside, if she were in any sense a princess, she'd be (like Princess Michael of Kent or Lynn Forester, Lady de Rothschild) "Princess Antony Radziwill," not "Princess Carole," since the title would come through her husband. It's not her own title. Flyte35 (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Princess. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Princess. You're wrong on a few points, Flyte35. You cannot apply British conventions to a non-British and automatically style the wife of a prince by his given name. Plenty of Americans recognize titles socially "here" and being American doesn't mean one cannot be titled. There are numerous examples of American citizens bearing titles from active monarchies, former monarchies, extant nobilities and former nobilities. Titles are socially used elsewhere by those who want to use them (either their own titles or addressing others by theirs). The British sovereign could have even refused permission and it would not have changed the fact that anyone else could have recognized Stanislas as a prince. Several countries have used titles for members of families who are either not reigning anymore or whose countries of origin no longer have a legal system of nobility. If you want to generalize, a wife is traditionally entitled to her husband's "estate" for life, even as a widow. Titles and all. It's as much hers (until or unless she remarries) now as it was his. Seven Letters 21:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Styling" the wife of a prince using the prince's given name is not just a British convention. That's how continental titles work as well, (see Princess Andrew of Greece and Denmark or Princess George William of Hanover). It is, of course, standard convention to sometimes refer to people socially using titles that are no longer recognized or legally valid. The most important question, as the other commentators have pointed out below, is whether or not there are independent reliable sources indicating that this is how she is addressed.Flyte35 (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't decide she is or isn't a princess. To say she is a princess, we need a reliable source labeling her one. Until then it should stay out. Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's simple: Find a reliable source that calls her a princess. If there is one, then fine - we call her a princess. Otherwise we do not. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do reliable independent sources say about her? If they say "princess", then fine, we should call her a princess. If they don't, then we shouldn't. I know nothing about this individual, but for anybody familiar with European history, that surname is going to be associated with Polish nobility... bobrayner (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the last three editors here. If independent reliable sources call her a princess, we call her a princess. If they don't, we don't. FurrySings (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that someone reverted my edit putting "princess" back in it citing the fact that the vogue article wasn't good enough. I added the daily mail UK one as a reference, not the vogue article. If that isn't good enough, what specifically is a good enough source for the fact that she is a princess? In addition to the Daily Mail source, here's one from the New York Post and the New York Daily News Bali88 (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this is important, I think the best way to address this is just to include a line in the personal life section about how, as the wife of a Anthony Radziwill, she is customarily accorded the title of Princess, and occasionally referred to as such. But trying to figure out the "official" title or rank, or altering her name to HSH Princess Carole Radziwill is a bad idea. It doesn't appear there is an official source for this, since no government seems to recognize the title.Flyte35 (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What government recognized Emperor Norton's title? Wikipedia does not refer to people primarily by their "legal" or "official" or "government-recognized" name. It refers to them according to the way that reputable publications do so. Several have been cited referring to this woman as "Princess". Her memoir mentions getting used to people addressing her and her late husband by that title and how, when she suppresses its use, it's to avoid being over-charged by vendors -- not because anyone considers the title bogus: there are lots of phony titles in use (anybody looked, lately, at the growing number of articles and references to so-called "Lords of the Manor" populating English Wikipedia?) The Radziwiłłs have been one of the most historically influential and prolific families in European history -- and every serious, non-Iron Curtain source writing about them (and dozens have articles on English Wikipedia)- has done so for half a millennium as princes and princesses. FactStraight (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we should just do it the way journalistic publications do. If it's that important, just include a line about how, as the widow of Anthony Radziwill, she is customarily accorded the title of Princess, and occasionally referred to as such. Flyte35 (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say my feelings on the matter are super strong as to whether it's at the beginning of the article as her "title" vs. in the personal information section, but the fact that she does in fact hold a royal title seems like fairly important information to me and should be included in some form. Does anyone have an opinion as to how we should handle this? Bali88 (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could just include a line about how, as the widow of Anthony Radziwill, she is customarily accorded the title of Princess, and occasionally referred to as such. And then cite the Vogue article or the Daily Mail or something that says that. Flyte35 (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I have added her title as a style for curtesy not as a legal title as you can see in her father in law obit in the nyt they say he is a prince thus making his son and his wife prince and princess with the right for hsh even if they never used it http://www.nytimes.com/1976/06/29/archives/prince-radziwill-dead-at-62-exhusband-of-lee-bouvier.htmlFlamingoflorida (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Wikipedian

[edit]

The info. was deleted by another editor as not notable.http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Carole_Radziwill&diff=prev&oldid=607074052 Several editors have edited that particular item in the article, and there is a pretty good chance that editors will check the article or the info. every time that particular episode is aired or viewed. I added a ref to the bravo.com site, which could be too close to a primary ref?--but other refs that I know-of are currently less acceptable as-reference (personal blogs), so I chose what i considered to be the best ref. to that item as far as WP is concerned. I put the info. back with the last accepted version, although I preferred the "wee hours" version, I don't want to mess-around with the text, but I think that the info. is notable and of particular interest to the article and WP24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is how she occupies herself when she can't sleep worthy of inclusion? Flyte35 (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the episode aired, several editors have visited the article specifically to edit that fact for one thing, so i think there is a little consensus that there is editor interest. I can't answer as to to whether or not being a Wikipedian is worthy of including in every subject's article, or if there is any WP policy. I want to say that i have seen a category (well-known Wikipedians)-but I'm not sure. Most bio articles where i have seen the info. included tend to highlight negative instances, so this is extra-noteworthy to me in that it is not "scandalous". 24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I find it to be an interesting detail and think it's worthy of inclusion. If it was like a lengthy series of paragraphs on the various things she does in her free time, I can see how it might not fit, but I've seen a variety of other wikipedia articles include references to celebrities, criminals, etc. making wikipedia edits. I vote to include it. Bali88 (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Basically Wikipedia deems notability by wherther there is WP:SIGCOV on a topic. Yes there can be other factors but mainly that is what is the main factor. If there isnt published accounts of something it probably isnt notable. (At least in the eyes of Wikipedia). However consensus matters and could override. I think it it interesting and therefore notable and should be included. Eruditess (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carole Radziwill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carole Radziwill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death?

[edit]

The article indicates that Ms Radziwill died yesterday. I cannot find any confirmation of this elsewhere online, and the two sources cited are from well before 29 February 2024. Can someone verify this? NoetherianRing (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carole_Radziwill&oldid=1247936391"